A Response to Callon's "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation"

In his piece on the scallops of St. Brieuc Bay, Callon details the attempt of three researchers who are seeking to save the overfished scallops of France. According to Callon, the researchers attempted to install themselves in a position between the fisherman and the scallops. They were the "passage point" that were supposed to prevent overfishing while their research was conducted. In doing this, the scientists were supposed to discover a method of essentially domesticating the scallops by trapping the larvae, assuming that they anchored at birth, and placing them in a location where they would be protected from predators and other dangers. The scallops would then be allowed to develop and repopulate the bay.

However, despite the scientist's efforts to save the scallops, the fisherman, who sought only to benefit themselves in the short term, dredged the bay for scallops effectively destroying the research and repopulation efforts. Despite the effectiveness of the researcher's plan on paper, in practice, the their plans and efforts were not viable. Faced with the prospect of a large return, the fisherman abandoned the efforts to create a long term sustainable solution. Even though the main issue, whether the larvae would anchor themselves, had been solved, the fisherman chose to obtain a short term gain rather than years of continued fishing. Callon's essay on the scallops of St. Brieuc Bay shows that the humanity's selfishness can destroy efforts to protect the voiceless animals if immediate gain is possible.

Responding to Haraway's "Sharing Suffering"

I found Haraway's argument to be very delicate; however that is not to say that it is a weak argument. When I say "delicate", I mean that she takes two different opinions and carefully weaves them in to her own argument. She does trend more towards the argument that animal testing is awful, instead of the argument that it is justified by the advancements; nevertheless, she does recognize that there are times when animal testing can be used to make great advancements. I think that she lays out a large part of her argument on page 75. "To me that does not mean people cannot ever engage in experimental animal lab practices, including causing pain and killing. It does mean that these practices should never leave their practitioners in moral comfort, sure of their righteousness." In other words, though the scientist may make a great advancement s/he should not forget that s/he inflicted pain on and killed animals. Later on, she says, on page 81, that "human beings must learn to kill responsibly." Again, she acknowledges that killing of animals may, at times, necessitate itself; however, this does not mean that we can do this whenever we want.

I largely agree with her argument. I think that it is important to remember that many advancements that have been made in the scientific and medical fields were due, in part, to animals. We cannot place ourselves supremely over the world without remembering the cost. If we are to kill animals for our food, we should do so in a humane manner. There are times when it is justifiable to kill, or use, animals; however, as Haraway says, we must not feel righteous, and we must remember the cost.

-Andy Albright

The Ontology of the Photographic Image

In his essay The Ontology of the Photographic Image, Andre Bazin argues that photography surpasses other forms of visual art because of its ability to capture reality. I agree with Bazin in that in a technical sense photography does surpass other forms of visual art. Photography is able to capture something exactly the way we see it. Photographs are more realistic than paintings because the images produced are exact copies of what was photographed. Bazin writes, "The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it." Painting on the other hand, is a direct reflection of the painter. The image produced isn't the "object itself", it becomes what the painter wants the object to be.

Sadly, the photographic image has become less and less realistic. With things like Photoshop becoming so common, one must think twice whether the image he/she is looking at is in fact real. Recently, there was media buzz about a Ralph Lauren ad that was Photoshopped so that the model looked thinner than she actually was. Just like in paintings the image produced has become what the photographer wants the object to be and not how it really is.

Response to Haraway--Week 3

I'll be honest: Haraway's "Sharing Suffering" just seems way too extremist to me. I know that she's trying to convince her readers that we should treat laboratory animals with the same respect we would humans. However, her argument falls short when she tries to equate animal rights with human rights. For many people, including myself, animals will never share the same rights as humans, nor should they. Don't get me wrong--the last thing I want to do here is to start a debate over animal rights. I'm just saying that Haraway tries to support her argument with a controversial view on animal rights.

The clearest example of Haraway's flaw in her essay is her comparison of eating meat to the Holocaust; she writes, "Meat eating is like the Holocaust; meat eating is the Holocaust" (81). My response: are you kidding me? Meat eating is nothing at all like the Holocaust; the only similarity is that both involve taking away life on a large scale. By the same token, harvesting cornstalks is the Holocaust. Stem cell research is the Holocaust. The big differences between eating meat and the Holocaust include, but are not limited to, the following: meat eating serves a human purpose, whereas the Holocaust does not; meat eating doesn't murder six million people over the span of a decade; the Holocaust does. Again, whether animals and humans share the same rights or not is not the subject of this post. All I'm saying is that it's a debatable topic, and if Haraway wishes to use that concept as part of her argument, then she's got a pretty weak argument.

Now if no one agrees with my opinions, so be it. If you'd like to flame me for it, I'd welcome that gladly. But if you agree with me on any point--well, I guess I'd be ok with that, too.

~Tim Yu

A response to "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative"

I remember watching nature videos in elementary school class about the colorful diversity of the rainforest and the threat humans posed to its survival. I didn't know anything about the story of Eden back then, but the video portrayal gave the name "rainforest" the similar connotation of "Eden" in my mind. It also inspired a group of my classmates to make a "Save the Rainforest" petition to the president, to which I speedily added my signature. The media encouraged the idea that it was our responsibility to protect and care for the gifts of Earth, especially the rainforest, a most amazing kind of forest. I especially felt the pressure when I saw maps of the dwindling rainforests of the world, endangered by the civilians who cut down trees to make a living. Now when reading Slater's "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative," I pay particular attention her observations of the ideas carried by the term "rainforest." Slater proposes that "the region's biodiversity, for instance, may foster a quasi-Edenic vision of a new garden to which the entire human race lays claim" (116). The color, noises, and activities of the deciduous biome pale in comparison variety of colors, noises, and activities attributed to the tropical rainforest. The fact that North America has no tropical rainforest for real-life experience increases the southerly glow of Amazon's Edenic aura. And there certainly is international interest in saving the rainforest. Not too long ago I noticed a "Rescue the Rainforest" label on a carton of Tropicana orange juice I was drinking. For every carton code entered on their site, Tropicana would protect 100 square feet of endangered rainforest for at least three years. Of course, I entered in the number and felt good about myself for the rest of the day. I realize, however, after reading Slater's essay, that if Tropicana had used the word "jungle" instead of "rainforest" there would probably have been less eager participation. Though jungles and rainforests are the same thing, the word "jungle" does not work. The word "jungle" would clash against the the clean, simple design of the Tropicana carton and "Rescue the Jungle" doesn't have the alliterative appeal of "Rescue the Rainforest." If even just the name makes a difference, I wonder how environmental campaigns for less Edenic places have managed. I have never seen a "Save the Swamps" campaign brought into such proximity as my refrigerator. If my OJ carton had promoted a "Save the Swamps," instead, I may have just put down my cup because swamps are muddy, and mud shouldn't associate with my "Lots of Pulp" OJ carton. I imagine the same difficulty obstructs the rescue of ugly endangered animals.

Another point Slater made was the general attitude towards natives. As Slater says, the article does sound like a debate over protecting an endangered species because 1. it is assumed that, as natives, the Yanomami are most at home among the flora and fauna, and don't want to partake in human civilization nor its publications. Therefore, modern civilization organizes the Yanomami's affairs without the Yanomami's input, as is done with endangered animals. And 2. the Yanomami are "untouched by modern civilization" (Brooke "Brazil Creates Reserve for Imperiled Amazon Tribe") so to preserve their rare culture (which goes without description, Slater notes) Brazil must allot land on which the Yanomami can freely go about their eco-friendly traditional activities. An endangered species is not the same as an endangered people, however. People are people as the Kayapo tribe proves with their more monetary oriented activities. It was intended that nobody should sell the resources of the tribal land for profit, but the people living on the land were considered the least likely culprits. Environmentalists who champion a nature untouched by humans forget that any human interaction with nature is human interaction with nature, even by people who traditionally have a smaller carbon footprint. Like Cronon said before, the idea that the best nature is one untouched by mankind implies that we should either commit suicide or continue guiltily living our sordid lives in the polluted cities. It seems best to just accept that all humans, like animals, are residents of the biosphere, and as members of the community of nature, everyone affects nature whether as hunter-gatherers, farmers, capitalists, communists, etc.

Are We Even Ready for Eden?

Biblical Eden is the perfect place. There is no need to work, the inhabitants are carefree, and everyone is apparently naked and doesn't care. In this version of Eden, according to Slater, we are the fallen masters. In another version brought up by Slater, we feel the need to return to a natural world uncorrupted by our presence and find a way to ally our technology with the remains of the environment. If these situations represent the best future for the planet and the human race, then why is everyone so quick to criticize an attempt at forging Eden? Probably because we can't agree which Eden is best for the planet.

First, the only way to return to a naturally perfect world is to ditch our technology or be wiped out by it. And I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Modern technology has become too integrated into our lives that its abandonment would most likely mean our extinction. Not that this would necessarily be bad for the environment, but it's just not plausible without nuclear war. But then let us examine the version where we hold "dominion", or "potential mastery" over nature. In this version, we can use nature for whatever we want. When Cronon writes his essay on Nature as Eden, he mentions that both environmentalists and developers will invoke Eden to appear that their own cause is more just. As Slater puts it, "Edenic images are both powerful and useful." But why can't both sides be right in presenting Eden? We will either be finding a way to master nature or to preserve it as it was meant to be, but in both cases, we will be fulfilling one type of Edenic narrative.

The Kayapo, an Amazonian tribe, are criticized by many romantics and environmentalists as screwing up nature by allowing modern technology to become a part of their lives. Slater asserts that many cases within the Amazon disprove how it acts as a sort of Eden our culture holds it to be, at least by the conventional narratives she displays it against. However, does not hesitate to counter the people who assert that the Kapayo are abandoning Eden by utilizing technology. While from my view she seems to be contradicting herself, I do agree with her latter point, but perhaps for a different reason. She claims that the Kapayo have not abandoned their Edenic association to the land in spite of the new technology, but I think that this new technology blended with the tribe is the perfect embodiment of the second Edenic narrative, not something that detracts from Eden. In contrast, the other much more primitive tribe, the Yanomami, are much more like the "savages" Teddy Roosevelt describes as similar to "Adam and Eve before the Fall", drawing on the first type of Edenic interpretation. Clearly, everyone can have a piece of Eden, even in the Amazon. It just depends how you want to translate it.

In the end, I think anything, even nuclear war, can be twisted to make a case for finding Eden. But the simple fact is that until we can agree on an interpretation of what Eden should be, it should not be used for anything short of Biblical studies. In today's societies Eden has lost the perfection we associate with it because we want to use it to justify anything we do. Suicide bombers use Paradise, a variety of Eden, as an excuse for their actions, so do ecoterrorists who fight in defense of the environment. Essentially, Edenic narratives and imagery can be used to defend anything (depending on whether we master it, replace it, ally ourselves with it, or rediscover it) and if this search for Eden ends up destroying the human race, should we be in such a race to rediscover it, especially if we are just going to Fall again?

"Eden" in a Corporate Context

What happens when a society living under a capitalist economy combines with the concept of the Amazon as an Edenic environment? In her piece “Amazonia as Edenic Narrative”, Slater clearly views the application of the term “Eden” to describe the Amazon as an example of how integrated this expression has become into Western thinking. I believe that Slater correctly identifies the hypocrisy present in our culture because the application of the word “Eden” has caused us to give it a sort of Disneyesque quality that glazes over the true reality of this region. Rather than seeing the native people and land for what they truly are, we are fed a sort of utopian portrayal of “Amazon tribes” that have yet to be impacted by civilization and the American corporate environment, especially through the use of advertisements.

The main case study that Slater uses to exemplify this viewpoint is the McDonald’s campaign about rain forest preservation in 1990. The deliberate use of images that were not even taken in the rain forest shows how far corporations will go to advance their cause, even if it means manipulating the public. Not only does this spread misinformation, but it hurts the native people who may be desperately struggling to survive. Their lives may have been altered to a much greater degree by modern development than the general public is led to suspect.

Another example that is used is Californian Indian casinos. One American corporation took advantage of the fact that casino games may be played on tribal land, and proceeded to put “illegal gambling devices” in their establishment. This led to the tribe being cheated out of millions of dollars. Slater undoubtedly includes this example to foreshadow what could happen in the Amazon if these native peoples are not protected from outside interests that could take advantage of them. With vast reserves of minerals and timber, they are a likely target of firms trying to make a quick buck.

Slater’s view that corporations have done a disservice to natives by highlighting the “Edenic nature” in which they live is largely confirmed by her numerous examples of this behavior. Even if this image does not accurately portray the Amazon environment, corporations will likely push this message as long as it continues to produce profits.